S Balaji Naidu Alias Balaji vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail in Crime No.43/2026 of Puttur Urban Police station, Tirupati District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 118(1), 74, 133, 351(2) read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’).

Mr. L.J. Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was arrested on 13.07.2026. He has been in judicial custody for the past 56 days. Pursuant to his surrender before the police, the material portion of the investigation has been completed. The petitioner has been involved in two offences, which are mentioned in the petition, relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Zeba Khan v. State of U.P.^{11.12026 SCC Online 188}.

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, on an earlier occasion, the son of the de-facto complainant had beaten the right thumb of one of the relatives of the petitioner. The husband of Respondent No.2 is a practising advocate and has been appointed as a Government Pleader, and he exerted pressure on the police for sidelining the investigation. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the husband of the de-facto complainant caused a poster to be printed stating that the petitioner and his family members were found missing or absconding, and the said posters were affixed in front of the office of the petitioner, thereby tarnishing the image and reputation of the petitioner. Because of the said activity, the petitioner was terminated from his services vide letter dated 24.03.2026. The petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court and urges this Court to allow the petition.

Ms. G. Jahnavi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Meka Rahul Chowdary, learned counsel for Respondent No.2, submits that there is a potential threat to the life and limb of Respondent No.2, her husband and their relatives at the hands of the petitioner and the other accused. The investigation is not completed. The accusations against the petitioner are well founded. Hence, she urged that the petition be dismissed.

Per contra, Mr.A.Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that the investigation is still in progress. The petitioner was taken into police custody for one day. The crime weapon was seized. So far, eight witnesses have been examined. L.W.2 suffered grievous injuries. Accused No.3 is still absconding. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor also submits that, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is a potential threat to the life and limb of the prosecution witnesses. Hence, he urged that the petition be dismissed.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for Respondent No.2. Perused the record.

As seen from the record, the petitioner is arraigned as Accused No.1. There are two cases registered against the petitioner, namely, Crime No.215 of 2024 on the file of Alipiri Police Station and Crime No.42 of 2018 of Vijayapuram Police Station. The latter case was referred as false. L.W.2 suffered grievous injuries as per the wound certificate issued by the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Puttur. The petitioner himself surrendered before the police on 13.07.2026. He has been in judicial custody for the past 56 days. So far, eight witnesses have been examined. The alleged crime weapon was also seized. The petitioner was also taken into police custody for a period of one day. The husband of the de-facto complainant is an advocate. He was also appointed as a Government Pleader. Accused No.3, who is the mother of Accused No.1/petitioner, is absconding. The de-facto complainant is the wife of the uncle of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a poster at page No.32. It shows that the petitioner and his parents were absconding. As per the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said poster was affixed in front of the office of the petitioner. As a result of the same, the employer of the petitioner issued an order dated 24.03.2026 temporarily relieving the petitioner from his duties until further orders.

More importantly, the de-facto complainant, who is the wife of L.W.2, alleges that Accused No.2 beat L.W.2, the husband of the de-facto complainant, with a stout stick with an intention to do away with his life, on his head. Her husband escaped from the blow, but the blow hit the right shoulder of the husband of the de-facto complainant. As a result, he suffered swelling and was unable to raise his hand. The de-facto complainant further alleges that the petitioner/A1 beat her husband with an iron rod on his face and caused bleeding injuries. As per the wound certificate, the injury allegedly caused by Accused No.2 is grievous in nature, as there is a fracture in the right clavicular region, whereas Injury No.2, namely, laceration on the left side of the lower limb, is also mentioned therein. As per the version of the de-facto complainant in her complaint, the accused had beaten the husband of the de-facto complainant with an iron rod on his face, causing a bleeding injury. The said allegation is connected to Injury No.1. Thus, it can be inferred that the petitioner had allegedly caused a simple injury to the husband of Respondent No.2.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the Petitioner/Accused No.1, this Court is inclined to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail with some stringent conditions.

In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following stringent conditions: